Afghanistan and Central Asia

In honor of Election Day here in America, how about we remind the two presidential candidates of a tremendously volatile and challenging issue they will all of a sudden be responsible for; Afghanistan/Pakistan democracy and stability. President-elect Obama or McCain will face quite the number of tests, and defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda, bringing good governance to Afghanistan, and helping to stabilize Pakistan will be central to their administration providing international security.

The Bush administration set up a meeting with Obama and McCain’s advisor’s two weeks ago to brief them on the current situation. The meeting featured a who’s who of Afghan experts from the US, NATO, and UN, who briefed two foreign policy aides for each Obama and McCain. The aides were reportedly told that the situation was rather dire and that they would need to start setting up their strategy/policy for the war effort before they take office in January.

“The intent was to ensure that everyone understand that the situation is very fast-moving, and if the new administration spends three months trying to figure out what to do, it’s too late,” said one administration official who participated in the discussion.

The Bush Administration has in recent months been working on a new strategy for the conflict, already involving the addition of 8,000 troops and the naming of Gen. Petraeus as the head of Central Command, and I hope the President-elect and Bush’s administration can work effectively in formulating a comprehensive and stable transition plan.  This plan may have to include a greater willingness of starting negotiations with elements of the Taliban.

The 2008 election will not be decided on either candidates position on Afghanistan/Pakistan, the economy, Bush, and Iraq have trumped it, but the next president had better be ready for what is indeed a troubling and strategic situation in Central Asia.

In all the violent incidents that have plagued the people of Afghanistan in its recent history, many have died, but even more have been permanently maimed and disabled. Below is a remarkable video about some of the Afghani disabled and their struggle for rights and services: Because the New York Times, who produced this video, will not allow me to embed the video for some reason, please click here to watch.

And because I would rather leave you for the weekend on a more optimistic note, here are two more light-hearted and hopeful pieces.

David Sherman is an American veterinarian who works for an international NGO in Afghanistan providing medical to its citizen’s pet and farm animals. Sherman has had some amazing experiences in the country and it has definitely affected his life perspective.

And if you thought that story was soft, then check this one out! It is a review of a Chinese cookbook, ‘Beyond the Great Wall: Recipes and Travels in Other China.’ The book spotlights Uighur, Kazak and Tajik peoples, customs, and food. Let me know if you find any worthwhile recipes.

Yesterday, I made a statement that it appeared that the Pakistani government was implicitly alright with the use of US drone predator missile attacks in their territory, as long they avoided civilian casualties. While according to statements by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry and several members of the country’s ruling coalition, this is not completely true. The Foreign Ministry and several parliament members requested the appearance of US Ambassador Anne Patterson so they could voice their protest of such measures to the US government. The For Ministry stated that the missile attacks should ’stop immediately’ as they argued that not only were they undermining Pakistani sovereignty and legitimacy, they were just adding fuel to the fire and turning the whole Pakistani populace against the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. A report stated that many Pakistani’s even blamed the recent Marriot Hotel attack in Islamabad on US air strikes.

The US military/government and the Pakistani military/government are both smashed tightly between a rock and a hard place. The US desires to stabilize Afghanistan and keep its troops safe and they believe one of the best way to do this is to go after the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements were ever they may be, as was shown by a similar US strike in Syria against militant forces. The Pakistani government/military are fighting for legitimacy and the right to govern their own lands. Though we all know the issue is more complicated than just these two aims for each side, I would like to think that these goals can have one combined strategy. Afterall, the US would love to have a stronger Pakistani government that could effectively rule over all its sovereign territory and the Pakistani government needs some help in putting down the Taliban, at least to a point where many of them would be forced to negotiate.

How are the goals of the Pakistani government/military and US government/military congruent? Different?

Today I would like to go over recent developments in the conflict spanning the Afghan-Pakistan border as the conflict’s many sides (NATO, Afghans, Taliban, Pakistan military, Al Qaeda, and local tribes) have all recently been in the news for various reasons: The Bush administration has authorized even greater use of missile/drone attacks inside of Pakistan, the Pakistan army has made some headway into the tribal region of Bajur, Tribal leaders have attempted to once again rise up and challenge the Taliban, and Afghan and Pakistan tribal and political leaders have moved ever closer to negotiations with elements of the Taliban.

US forces have been using drones to target Al Qaeda and Taliban units since the beginning of the war, but this strategy has increased greatly of late and has moved ever deeper into Pakistan sovereign territory. Slate’s William Saleton catalogs many recent attacks, including one yesterday in which 20 people were reportedly killed, and argues with evidence from a New York Times article that despite claims from Pakistani officials, their government tacitly supports this tactic.

What the Pakistan government is adamantly against in the presence of US/NATO troops on their territory, as their officials argue it undermines their legitimacy. This is indeed true, but the US needs to see some results from the Pakistani military that these border regions are being governed and policed. While it appears that the Pakistani military, long accused of making deals that favor the Taliban, has made some progress in the Bajur area of the tribal belt. The region has been deemed a ‘mega sanctuary’ for the Taliban militants and after two months of hard fighting the Pak military has caused an outright fleeing of militant elements from the area. However, the holding of this strategic region will be the true test of the will and ability of the Pak military, this is indeed a welcome development.

Another encouraging sign is the slight reintroduction of lashkars, or tribal militias, into the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal regions. These tribes and their leaders have been decimated, first by the Pakistani gov in the 1980s (with US help) in their fight against the Soviets, and recently by the Taliban since 2001, who have strongly challenged their rule in the tribal regions. Despite great mortal threat to their lives, many lashkars are rising up, and supporting the Pakistan army in removing the Taliban from their regions. It seems impossible to imagine the Taliban defeated without the help and reemergence of these lashkars.

Lastly, a delegation of Afghan and Pakistani officials met in Islamabad to approach the issue of reconciliation with elements of the Taliban who would recognize both state constitutions and renounce violence. The US remained quiet on this issue, weary of former Pak gov deals with the militants, but has stated that it supports reconciliation with those elements who give up violence. Here is an excerpt:

Pakistani and Afghan leaders vowed Tuesday to seek dialogue with Taliban insurgents, saying the “door is now open” for reconciliation.

The declaration by political and tribal leaders adds force to existing moves in Afghanistan and Pakistan to talk to the militants amid what appears to be growing international recognition that dialogue with moderates is key to ending the violence.

Former Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah said both countries would talk only with those militants who “accept the constitutions of both nations,” but did not explicitly say they must first disarm.

Another delegate to the two-day talks between political and tribal leaders in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad said that the offer was not open to al-Qaida members blamed for some of the worst violence in both countries.

Just like the reemergence of the lashkars and more strategic uses of attacks in border tribal areas, negotiations with elements of the Taliban that are willing to live peacefully in the region will be necessary for a conclusion to this current conflict.

What do this new, and old, developments and strategies mean for the future of this conflict? Are these positive developments or just one more part of a long, sad story?

(Photo Source: New York Times: Tribal Militias with the Pakistani Army)

Continuing yesterday’s thread, I would like to highlight one major aspect of progress in Afghanistan; the role of women in the workplace and in society as a whole. To do this I will showcase the stories of a few particular women, and unfortunately in their stories there is great suffering and too visible of signs of how far the nation needs to go to be a place where there is equal opportunity and rights for all citizens. However, these stories which you are about to hear would be impossible before the Taliban’s removal in 2001 and would surely become negligible in the near future if the Taliban gained control back over more and more parts of the country.

Malalai Kakar became Police Lt.-Col. Malalai Kakar soon after the Taliban were overthrown in 2001 and she quickly rose to become Afghanistan’s highest ranking female police officer. Her bravery and will lead her to use her position to fight for and protect Afghan women suffering from domestic violence and other crimes. She chose this vocation knowing full well the threat to her physical life and in fact received death threats on a frequent basis. Unfortunately, her personal story ends on a tragic note, as perpetrators claiming to be members of the Taliban, finally murdered her and severely injured her son in late September. Kaker was obviously viewed as a mortal threat to the Taliban’s existence and way of life. If any one story personifies what is right and what is wrong, this has to be it. Kakar’s murderers need to be brought to justice, the Afghan populace needs to see that this is unacceptable and these wrongdoers will need to be seen paying their debt to society.

Unfortunately, this next story highlights that even the government and the country’s judicial system are at times anti-women’s and equal rights. Perwiz Kambakhsh, a young journalist, had a life sentence commuted to just 20 years in jail! for distributing an article critical of Muhammad’s treatment of women’s rights. What Kambakhsh wrote may have been offensive, but offensiveness should not translate to jail time or a death sentence. If the Afghan government is to reform the judicial system must become a greater voice and pillar of a constitution based on equality and freedom of speech.

Otherwise women and others who are oppressed will fear to speak out for their rights and well-being. Farida Nekzad, managing editor for Pajhwok Afghan News, discusses the dangers from all directions for those who dare to speak out for women’s rights and safety:
“When the reporters write about these issues, the ruling power does not want to tolerate it, does not want these issues to be heard by people or to be talked about,” she says. “When a woman leader comes out and talks about the issues of women’s rights, women’s freedom, and freedom of speech, that woman is in a lot of danger.”

So this trip through the progress of Afghan women has been bumpy to say the least, and this will no doubt continue, but I want to leave you a story of a group of women in the Bamian Province. These women now hold law enforcement positions, can drive a car, and a woman is actually governor of the entire province. I would like to say that this is a happy ending to my piece today, and in many ways it is, but we must know, as this group of women surely does, that their current way of life is being threatened everyday by the Taliban, other extremists, and at times their own government, and only time will tell what the future holds. But one things for sure, these women are extremely brave and their courage is no doubt an inspiration to all those who will hopefully follow in their footsteps. Enjoy the video.

If you read most of the news and editorial pieces I posted on Monday, you probably have a negative outlook on the stability and chances for progress in Afghanistan, and for the most part, rightly so. But there are positive things going on in the country, things that before 2001 probably seemed impossible to most Afghanis. I have mentioned before on this page that the tremendous work of NATO soldiers, humanitarian aid workers, and skilled trainers, both foreign and domestic, has brought progress to many sectors of Afghan life and that these people’s work was largely unreported, and this is still true today. The US State Department and the Afghan government are aware of this and have started to try to get the word out, but they need to do more. So does the overall US/Western/Middle East/Asia media, who too easily just report on the latest bombing, Taliban attack, civilian casualties, all vitally important, but not the entire story.

So as I said above, how has Afghanistan ‘improved’ lately and how has the US State Dep and Afghan government tried to get the word out about this progress? While US Ambassador and Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy David A. Gross and his Afghan counterpart, Amir Zai Sangin, Minister of Communications and Information Technology have written editorials and made appearances in an attempt to showcase the nation’s progress in the communication field, mainly in the growth of the Internet and telephone industries. Though they acknowledge the tremendous amount of work to be done, they are proud of the accomplishments so far of the Afghan ministry of communications, which has ‘quickly licensed private mobil phone providers, effectively regulated a competitive communications environment and encouraged direct foreign investment into the extremely challenging post-conflict economy.’ In 2001, Afghanistan had fewer than 40,000 telephones and no cell phones, but today the country has 6 million telephone subscribers, of which an incredible 5.4 million of are cell phone. Five national and three highly competitive regional carriers support these networks. The amount of foreign direct investment in the telecommunications industry has exceeded $1 billion and the sector was expected to bring in revenues topping $100 million for the Afghan government.

Regarding the Internet, Afghanistan now has more than 500,000 Internet users and at least 18 providers. With US government support the Afghan government has started a project to construct a national fiber-optic network ring along with a new national system of highways. This project in Afghanistan is part of a larger State Department endeavor called the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, which brings together government, NGOs, and private industry to work toward these goals: 1. To address the challenges to free expression and the free flow of ideas on the Internet, 2. To advocate for the availability of the widest possible universe of content through the Internet, and 3. To actively minimize the success of repressive regimes in censoring information, and increase the transparency of content restrictions.

Perhaps the best aspect of a growing telecommunication’s network in Afghanistan is its ability to provide employment opportunities, as Gross and Sangin stated that already the sector has created 60,000 jobs. The other positives are that greater availability of phones and Internet services can help businesses begin and start up with greater potential for growth and these industries provide outlets for the Afghan people to see and hear views and cultures from anywhere in the world. New ideas and avenues for information will be more and more at their finger tips. The spread of greater telecommunications networks will hopefully also aid the Afghan government’s work, helping it be more efficient and effective in reaching its citizens and providing them the services they deserve. As Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post warns though, we must be careful where our aid money is spent, as even positive steps such as those mentioned above could have unintended negative consequences.

Tomorrow I will discuss another sign of progress in Afghanistan, the role of women in the workplace and in society. A few personal stories will show how far the nation has come since the oppressive Taliban regime, but also how far it has to go.

The ways the world’s leading newspapers have covered NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan and the situation on the ground there have morphed several times in recent years. After taking a backseat to the War in Iraq for nearly 4 years, the Afghan conflict came back into the mainstream about a year ago, mainly with statements that it was ‘the right’ or the ‘good’ war. But lately, we have seen a harder, more nuanced look at the troubling situation brewing in Afghan/Pakistan, and more and more cautious and negative toned editorials and articles have appeared of late. Of course, this seems mostly logical as the war in Iraq has settled down quite a bit, we had a presidential candidate emphasize its policy, and most importantly the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has become increasingly volatile and unstable to be ignored any longer. So here a few recent news stories and editorials to take a look at below. Have you noticed a change in coverage? What about its tone? More negative? Positive? Why has this occurred?

News

Firstly, here are two articles both focusing on Afghan civilian casualties in this conflict and the fog of war; one reporting last Thursday’s brazen Taliban attack on two buses in which dozens of civilians appeared to have been killed, and another discussing the increasing toll on NATO generals of either mistaken or ‘unavoidable’ instances where Afghan civilians have perished, specifically the Azizabad airstrike that may have killed around 90 people.

Here is an update on the progress of a reassessment review of US strategy in the country by top level officials which is due to be completed right after the Nov. 4 US election.

Lastly, here is quick report about President Karzai’s recent shuffling of his cabinet and its possible implications.

Editorials

The following pieces present to the audience a gloomy picture of the Afghan situation and acknowledge that time may be running out for a chance at stability and strong government in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The New York Times editorial boards’ ‘Downward Spiral
Spiegel Online’s Susanne Koelbl’s ‘The West is at a Loss in Afghanistan‘
Financial Times Rodric Braithwaite’s ‘New Afghan Myths Bode Ill for Western Aims‘

David Miliband, foreign secretary of the UK, contrary to the previous editorials, argues in ‘Mission Possible‘ that NATO’s mission in Afghanistan is winnable, we just have to have a greater understanding of what that mission is. Miliband stresses that we should not expect Britain-style society to flower, but that we must help create an Afghan government with institutions with the capability and legitimacy to deny the Taliban power and influence. Miliband does not deny the sacrifices needed for this to come to fruition, but he thinks it is far from ‘mission impossible.’

Larry Everest in ‘Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad‘ argues against the idea that the US and NATO are in Afghanistan for legitimate and global order purposes, and instead, with much paranoia and dubious assertions, claims it is another imperialist adventure by a Western power and has the undeniable support of both future presidential candidates Obama and McCain.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

I apologize for the lack of posts since Wednesday as I am in the middle of a move from New York to California. Today I would like to go over a few important stories that have occurred in the last week.

Ahmed Wali Karzai a Drug Dealer? - The New York Times ran an article last week, citing American and Afghan sources, accusing President Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, of being involved in the heroin trade in Afghanistan. Ahmed Wali and his brother have denied these reports, calling them ‘baseless,’ and arguing that they spring from political pressure that the Karzai government has put on the US recently regarding civilian casualties. The New York Times report centers around informants’ descriptions of two large drug shipments intercepted by Afghan police that showed strong links to Ahmed Wali, including a phone call where he told the government to leave the shipment of heroin alone since it was his.

I have discussed the importance of the drug trade in Afghanistan before on this page, mainly as it relates to funding the Taliban, and regarding the combating and neutralizing of the growing practice, not punishing corrupt officials and major civilian perpetrators, like the suspected Ahmed Wali, was not part of the prescribed plan. There is a consensus that for the Afghan government to gain legitimacy and strength in all of the nation’s regions it must show it can combat the drug trade and its perpetrators, especially those who are involved in government. For the people of Afghanistan, and for us in America and NATO who send our soldiers over there, the Afghan government must not be seen as impotent or corrupt, and this case shows both. There is the obvious fear that if Karzai actually prosecuted corrupt drug officials in his government, the breadth of the indictments would cause great instability and may further its lose of legitimacy, and this is most likely the reason the US has not pushed him too hard, but something must be done.

Condoleezza in Kazakhstan - US Secretary of State Rice made a one day stopover in Astana last week and held a press conference with Kazak Foreign Minister Marat Tazhin. She and Tazhin stated that Kazakhstan and the US were ’strategic partners’, but that Kazakhstan had ‘excellent contacts’ with Russia and all of its neighbors. In recent weeks, after the Georgia conflict, Russia’s President Medvedev has laid out in several speeches that Russia has a special sphere of influence, and Rice made several comments combating any thought that this involved Kazakhstan; “We don’t see any of this as a zero-sum game. We don’t see and don’t accept any notion of a special sphere of influence and so we look forward to continue to building our relationship with Kazakhstan.” Another major issue addressed was Kazakhstan’s role in stabilizing and helping in the economic development of Afghanistan, including infrastructure and energy projects. Though Rice and Tazhin did not explicitly discuss this during the news conference, there is also no doubt that energy relations were a hot topic, as Russia has made several successful inroads in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan since the Georgia crisis and West has been put on its heals.

Turkmenistan’s New Constitution - In very late September the government of Turkmenistan adopted a new constitution which seemed to be largely aimed at securing foreign investors and not its citizens’ rights. The constitution abolished former dictator Niyazov’s 2,500 hand-picked legislature and replaced it with a 125 member elected parliament. President Berdymukhammedov made a statement that these parliamentary elections, set for December, would be monitored, but by whom it remains unclear. The constitution also sets the presidential term at 5 years, but it is unclear if there were term limits, but this is highly, highly doubtful. The president was also given the power to appoint regional governors, just like Putin instituted a couple years back. On the positive side, the new constitution did several things to increase commerce and the freedom of investment in the nation. Property rights were strengthened along with market-economy principles, both in hopes of soothing the fears of foreign energy investors. I do not know all the ins-and-outs of this new legal document and only time will tell if it provides for any real progress in the country’s citizen rights and freedoms. A recent protest by Reporters Without Borders at the Turkmen embassy in Paris for the release of journalist Annakurban Amankiychev and human rights activist Sapardurdy Khajiyev, both in jail since 2006, showcases how far the country has yet to go in providing a safe and secure life for all its citizens, no matter what their beliefs or political leanings.

(Photo Source: International Herald Tribune)

The 2nd Presidential Debate and the 2nd time each candidate failed to inform the American public of the fight ahead or layout a clear strategy for victory for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Here is the transcript and video. Regarding military force and strikes in Pakisani territory, Obama emphasized this as a practical policy and McCain once again painted this Obama position as naive, arguing that he would also support such action, but with a quieter voice and big stick, a la Teddy Roosevelt.  Concerning Afghan strategy, not much new here, Obama and McCain both emphasized more troops, with Obama stressing the importance of getting the Karzai government to be more responsive to its people and McCain arguing that new Central Command Gen. Petraeus will help implement a similar Surge strategy that can help both the Afghan and Pakistan government in the fight against the insurgents.  Obama was adamant on the Afghan/Pakistan border region being the central front of US national security and was very hawkish on getting Osama and Al Qaeda.  McCain continues to support the Surge strategy and states that it will need to be altered, but fails to explain exactly how so or connect it to the amount of troops levels needed.  While McCain may be naive on the Surge’s chances of success in the conflict, Obama’s blaming of the Bush Administration for supporting Musharraf as the major reason for lack of Pakistani people support and insurgent growth is in the same vein.  The US gave billions in aid to Musharraf and not only for military use, but utilizing these funds in the FATA and tribal areas of the border is extremely difficult, shown by the building and then Taliban destroying of schools.  One has to be worried at the same time as pleased that Pakistan has a new democraticly-elected government, as it has not been tested and lacks authority in the border area.  Lastly neither candidate or moderator broached the topic of negotiating with the Taliban or other insurgents.

The one person who stood tallest in the debate was moderator Tom Brokaw for finally asking a direct question regarding the possible dire future and present of Afghanistan and how this might affect US strategy.  Unfortunately Obama and McCain seemed to not even here the question as they surely didn’t answer it.  Here is the exchange followed by the rest of the debate’s Pakistan/Afghan portion:
BROKAW: Can I get a quick response from the two of you about developments in Afghanistan this week? The senior British military commander, who is now leading there for a second tour, and their senior diplomatic presence there, Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is well known as an expert in the area, both have said that we’re failing in Afghanistan.

The commander said we cannot win there. We’ve got to get it down to a low level insurgency, let the Afghans take it over. Cowper-Coles said what we need is an acceptable dictator.

If either of you becomes president, as one of you will, how do you reorganize Afghanistan’s strategy or do you? Briefly, if you can.

OBAMA: I’ll be very brief. We are going to have to make the Iraqi government start taking more responsibility, withdraw our troops in a responsible way over time, because we’re going to have to put some additional troops in Afghanistan.

Gen. [David] McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan right now, is desperate for more help, because our bases and outposts are now targets for more aggressive Afghan — Taliban offenses.

We’re also going to have to work with the Karzai government, and when I met with President Karzai, I was very clear that, “You are going to have to do better by your people in order for us to gain the popular support that’s necessary.”

I don’t think he has to be a dictator. And we want a democracy in Afghanistan. But we have to have a government that is responsive to the Afghan people, and, frankly, it’s just not responsive right now.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain, briefly.

MCCAIN: Gen. Petraeus has just taken over a position of responsibility, where he has the command and will really set the tone for the strategy and tactics that are used.

And I’ve had conversations with him. It is the same overall strategy. Of course, we have to do some things tactically, some of which Sen. Obama is correct on.

We have to double the size of the Afghan army. We have to have a streamlined NATO command structure. We have to do a lot of things. We have to work much more closely with the Pakistanis.

But most importantly, we have to have the same strategy, which Sen. Obama said wouldn’t work, couldn’t work, still fails to admit that he was wrong about Iraq.

He still will not admit that he was wrong about the strategy of the surge in Iraq, and that’s the same kind of strategy of go out and secure and hold and allow people to live normal lives.

And once they feel secure, then they lead normal, social, economic, political lives, the same thing that’s happening in Iraq today.

So I have confidence that General Petraeus, working with the Pakistanis, working with the Afghans, doing the same job that he did in Iraq, will again. We will succeed and we will bring our troops home with honor and victory and not in defeat.

 The Rest:
QUESTION: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

OBAMA: Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end. So part of the reason I think it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that’s funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

BROKAW: Sen. McCain?

MCCAIN: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with — the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

OBAMA: Tom, just a…

BROKAW: Sen. McCain…

OBAMA: … just a quick follow-up on this. I think…

MCCAIN: If we’re going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it…

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me. It’d be fine with me.

BROKAW: … if I can, with this question.

OBAMA: Then let’s have one.

BROKAW: All right, let’s have a follow-up.

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me.

OBAMA: Just — just — just a quick follow-up, because I think — I think this is important.

BROKAW: I’m just the hired help here, so, I mean…

OBAMA: You’re doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.

MCCAIN: Thank you very much.

OBAMA: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don’t think is an example of “speaking softly.”

This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, “Next up, Baghdad.”

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan — the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I’m president.

MCCAIN: And, Tom, if — if we’re going to go back and forth, I then — I’d like to have equal time to go — to respond to…

BROKAW: Yes, you get the…

MCCAIN: … to — to — to…

BROKAW: … last word here, and then we have to move on.

MCCAIN: Not true. Not true. I have, obviously, supported those efforts that the United States had to go in militarily and I have opposed that I didn’t think so.

I understand what it’s like to send young American’s in harm’s way. I say — I was joking with a veteran — I hate to even go into this. I was joking with an old veteran friend, who joked with me, about Iran.

But the point is that I know how to handle these crises. And Sen. Obama, by saying that he would attack Pakistan, look at the context of his words. I’ll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I’ll get him. I know how to get him.

I’ll get him no matter what and I know how to do it. But I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my career in the United States Senate.

And we have fundamental disagreements about the use of military power and how you do it, and you just saw it in response to previous questions.

Contrary to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates during the recent debates, new leader of the US Central Command Gen. David Petraeus provides us with some straight talk and analysis about the Afghanistan conflict and possible strategies for success.  However, his position is still political and politics seep through at times, especially regarding whether or not the US should use force inside of Pakistani territory, in this interview with Spiegel Online. The interview covers many of the questions we have gone over on this page, including: Can the ‘Surge’ work in Afghanistan?, stability or democracy?, should the use force in Pakistani territory?, troop level needed for victory?, why exactly is the US in Afghanistan and what kind of commitment should it make?, and what is the role of NATO, what can NATO do?

In discussing the possibility of the US strategy in Iraq, basically the Surge and Sunni-US partnership, being translated to Afghanistan, Petraeus exhumes not confidence, but cautiousness, a regular practice for the man, as he adamantly calls himself not a pessimist nor an optimist, but a realist.  Concerning a shared strategy in both nations; ‘There are some ideas that will translate from Iraq to Afghanistan and there are many that will not. The first lesson of counterinsurgency, in fact, is that every situation is truly unique, has its own context, its own specific set of factors—and you have to understand that context in enormous detail to be able to craft a sound and comprehensive approach.’  Petraeus  acknowledges the challenges that Afghanistan brings that were not so dramatic in Iraq, in fact he stated that in Iraq  ‘you are rebuilding, and in Afghanistan you are building.’

He proceeds to describe the differing elements to each case and segues to the critical and deteriorating Pakistan/Afghan shared border situation.  Petraeus argues, along with ISAF commander Gen. David McKiernan, that you cannot approach Afghan on its own, that you have to view the situation as a region, not as one country or another.  Concerning the US conducting military strikes or incursions in Pak territory, Petraeus tippy toes around the question and just repeats the mantra that the US is in a ‘close dialogue’ with the new Pak government to stem the tide of extremism.  According to this report, the new Pakistani government is making a move on a major extremists sanctuary.  Spiegel also asks the General about the importance of stability in the Pak and Afghan, even at the expense of democracy.  Petraeus stated that ‘both would be best’ and then moves on. 

Now one of my pet peeves is that US politicians, Obama, McCain, and to a lesser extent President Bush, have failed to express to the American people, EU, and the world how difficult a task this is and why it is important for the Taliban and other extremist insurgents to be defeated.  In fact, Robert D. Kaplan just wrote a provocative piece analyzing why the US is in the region, is it because of just a Manhunt for Osama or do we have a greater regional mission?  Petraeus is unequivocally on the side of seeing the situation as a strategic necessity and argues that we must defeat the extremists in the Pak/Afghan border and greater region.  The General argues the US has ‘vital interests’ in Afghanistan as do other countries.  His greatest stated concern is the return of an extremist sanctuary.  Lastly, concerning about the length of the conflict, Petraeus gives a sober assessment that Afghanistan ‘was going to be the longest campaign’ of ‘the long war.’

What did Spiegel Online fail to ask the General?  What did he fail to answer?  Will Gen. Petraeus as Central Command leader have the same influence in Afghanistan as he had in Iraq?  Or will he be kept too busy by the many other important and strategic issues in the Middle Eastern region?  How were his answers different than the ones you have heard from the presidential candidates?

(Photo Source: Spiegel Online)